[jp57]

As others have mentioned, a pie is consumable, and thus a good one has value even if it isn't original.

But a slight change to the original scenario makes asking about originality much more reasonable:

Imagine you write a peach pie recipe over the weekend, and you give a copy of the recipe to your friend. They respond:

"Wait, how is this different from every other peach pie recipe that's ever been written? It seems really similar to another recipe I have."

That's not an unreasonable answer.

When I was in a band, one of the most valuable things my songwriting friends and I did for each other was tell each other when our work sounded like something that was already out there.

If you make a new piece of software and offer it to a friend to use, it's not unreasonable for them to ask how it's different from something that's out there already.

[015a]

I think the better metaphor is: Imagine you make a chair over the weekend. You already have many chairs. Chairs are readily and cheaply available. Your design is likely derivative of many other chairs.

Being told any of these things by a friend you show the chair to is entirely pointless and maybe even mean. The only angle that has some level of social acceptability is an angle like "check out this chair that's like what you wanted to build, maybe you could learn something from it", but even that is a 50/50 on whether its taken positively or taken as "oh, you don't think I don't know how to build a chair, wtf bro".

Pie recipes are different. Music is different (VERY different) (incomparable).

[jp57]

I'd say software is more like a pie recipe or a song than like a pie or a chair.

[Gigachad]

Software is more like the chair design/assembly instructions. It can be trivially replicated an infinite number of times.

[Spivak]

And yet we're paid to write derivative songs all day which is why I don't think the analogy fits.

If I write yet another rails app that does nothing to push the industry forward and isn't novel (to a computer scientist) it nonetheless provides business value. And since it isn't consumed on use it's clear that we're talking about a bespoke durable good — a chair, a shelf, a thing that is useful without it being novel.

Software might be made of words but that doesn't make it a recipe or a song.

[aidenn0]

But in this case, the bespoke rails app does do something that other ones do not, in the sense of it works with a specific database with specific operations.

To stretch the analogy, "this chair fits people who are 180.3cm tall better than any previous chair"

[hnlmorg]

You're comparing completely different products by abstract concepts that are entirely contextual. So the GP is going to be just as "correct" as you. That's the problem with analogies, the more abstract they are, the more people disagree because they perceive them from a different contextual view point.

edited to make the point clearer

[sqeaky]

Brilliant inversion. Because software can be used without consuming it we presume there is some utility in new software distinct from prior software otherwise it would come with information explaining it was purely a "creative act" as the article puts it.

I wouldn't create a new office suite for the joy of creation then offer it along side ms word or google docs. I might make one then put it in a portfolio as a showcase of skill or do it to learn some skill. But having two word processors is useless in a way that having 2 of a consumable good is not.

[dartos]

That’s a big reason why software companies can be so profitable.

Almost no material cost.

[hnlmorg]

> When I was in a band, one of the most valuable things my songwriting friends and I did for each other was tell each other when our work sounded like something that was already out there.

I'm a big advocate for originality, but its worth noting that most bands will have covered at least one song.

> If you make a new piece of software and offer it to a friend to use, it's not unreasonable for them to ask how it's different from something that's out there already.

If you're comparing baking to software then I'd argue that the software equivalent of a recipe is going to be frameworks and the programming language. And people do very much flock towards common frameworks that are known to work well. Just like how a lot of people prefer to use recipes that are known to work rather than chancing on something unknown.

[jp57]

Sure, you do covers, and everyone knows the difference between a cover and an original. Even so, bands that do original music often try to do the cover in their own style, so the question of "how is this different from the original" is still relevant.

[hnlmorg]

> Sure, you do covers, and everyone knows the difference between a cover and an original.

Everyone? You'd be amazed at the number of songs people think are the originals but are actually covers. I bet there's some songs even you didn't realise were covers

> Even so, bands that do original music often try to do the cover in their own style

"often" is a pretty telling term here because it's also often when the cover is extremely faithful to the original.

> so the question of "how is this different from the original" is still relevant.

People ask that question about all sorts of things. But what the point originally being inferred was, is that if the secondary item isn't distinct enough from the original then the secondary item doesn't have much value. And I'm making a point that doesn't apply to music (and nor do I believe it applies to baking either).

The entire premise of some pastimes, such as karaoke, is centred around the concept of replication rather than originality.

Personally, I prefer originality over replication too. but it would be stupid for me to ignore the fact that a significant number of the worlds population just want to enjoy something without caring about how original it is.

[jp57]

> Sure, you do covers, and everyone knows the difference between a cover and an original.

Everyone? You'd be amazed at the number of songs people think are the originals but are actually covers. I bet there's some songs even you didn't realise were covers

Geez. I meant the concept of a cover vs the concept of an original. A cover is ultimately a performance, and is different from writing a new song. This is so well understood within the music community that a song even has separate copyrights for the song itself and a recording of its performance (even by the songwriter).

A baked pie is analogous to a performance of a recipe, while the recipe itself is analogous to the song (as a concept).

But it is strange to think of a reimplementation of a piece of software that one might acquire and use easily; it doesn't really fit the concept of performance. I am in fact a fan of reimplementing things in order to figure out how they work, but I don't expect my implementation to have any utility beyond the pedagogical value I got from doing it, unless it is in some way different from what exists already. I'm not sure what value I'd get from showing it to someone or what they'd get from looking at it, exactly.

[hnlmorg]

> Geez. I meant the concept of a cover vs the concept of an original. A cover is ultimately a performance, and is different from writing a new song. This is so well understood within the music community that a song even has separate copyrights for the song itself and a recording of its performance (even by the songwriter).

If only it were that simple. There are constantly cases bought to court about similarities in one persons work to another artists. Then you have other issues around what constitutes a derivative work. And so many original songs sample other artists songs and pay them royalties, that's not a cover either.

I think what you're trying to highlight is writing credits vs performance. Which is a lot easier to define. However even here, plenty of disputes still happen.

> But it is strange to think of a reimplementation of a piece of software that one might acquire and use easily; it doesn't really fit the concept of performance.

The real problem with these analogies is that you're comparing something consumable with something reuable. But I accept the point of an analogy isn't precision.

> I am in fact a fan of reimplementing things in order to figure out how they work, but I don't expect my implementation to have any utility beyond the pedagogical value I got from doing it, unless it is in some way different from what exists already.

Would emulation fall into this category? You're building software to run something exactly as it would run elsewhere - a reimplementation. The motive differs (to run on different hardware) but that's not a property of the product itself.

Which comes back to my earlier post: you're talking about the merit of replication without discussing motives behind it. In your latest comment you say "to figure out how they work" and that's another great example of a motive that brings value to replication.

[albedoa]

> If only it were that simple. There are constantly cases bought to court about similarities in one persons work to another artists. Then you have other issues around what constitutes a derivative work. And so many original songs sample other artists songs and pay them royalties, that's not a cover either.

It's increasingly difficult to accept that you are replying to jp57 in good faith. They are not talking about the ability of anyone to recognize the difference between an original and a derived work. The concept of a cover is well-understood.

[strangattractor]

When a User adopts a new piece of software an investment of time and effort is necessary (not so for eating a pie). If a particular piece of software doesn't do anything to improve the User's current process it is a wasted investment. If the User currently doesn't use a similar piece of software because they found what is available lacking then why invest if the new software doesn't do anything different.

Asking how a product is different is always relevant when allocation of your own resources is involved.

[chipsrafferty]

Didn't know eating pie was 0 time.

Personally, it takes me less time to decide whether some new software is crap and not worth my time than it does to eat a pie.

[strangattractor]

Zero investment of my time or resources - I already know how to eat pi - nothing to learn or experiment. If it is the same pie I had before and did not like I don't even bother to try it. Of course if it is different than pie I had before I might try it but apparently I should not even ask.

[atoav]

I have thought about this in the context of making music as well. For me the line of thinking goes somewhat like this:

1. I value music that is a honest expression of a feeling, some sort of musical idea or whatever

2. Personally I would not usually feel satisfied with my own musical expression if I copied a thing that works for someone else

This means that I also find it unlikely that a popstars scripted appearance just happened to authentically produce expressions that just coincidentally happened to reproduce sucessful music (especially given the fact that they don't write the songs themselves usually). Additionally I apply the standards I apply to myself to others. This is something e.g. programmers are probably deeply familiar with.

Now this is a bit like in the Matrix films where Cypher betrays our heros, because he would rather enjoy his steak in the simulation than face the desert of the real. Only I believe the choice isn't really there. Either you can ignore the simulation or you're allergic to it. I could pretend I like whatever music people listen to usually, but it both bores me and makes me actively hate myself for listening to it.

Now music that is good is something else. And it doesn't even need to be a new idea or particularily complex to play. There just needs to be something within the musical expression that itself goes elsewhere.

[drewcoo]

> "Wait, how is this different from every other peach pie recipe that's ever been written? It seems really similar to another recipe I have."

> That's not an unreasonable answer.

Pies are not supposed to be unique. Recipes are freely traded. That "friend" is an a-hole.

[mistercow]

Also the analogy just really breaks at the seam we’re examining because a reasonable and obvious answer would be “I like the pies you get from this one”, which isn’t a great answer if you’re talking about software. And recipes are a lot simpler than software, so your friend could just look at the two recipes and quickly see how they’re different.

[jajko]

Indeed if that's the response, you either have an acquaintance with 0 emotional intelligence that is by default like an elephant in porcelain shop in relationships, probably move on since its a lifelong effort to even just sustain such friendship.

Or its an envious a-hole since such message is clearly denigrating, still lacks basic emotional intelligence, and then just run and don't look back. If I ever saw 2 women commenting each other's efforts like that, there would be a fight soon or at least lifelong hate would have firmly started.

Normal response is for example a mix of appreciation of effort, curiosity about uniqueness and methodology, other recipes, etc. One can chip in other attempts and compare, that's how mankind lived till now and its considered normal human interaction (TM).

Bad relationships are much worse than no relationships, be it friends or romantic type. Many folks are very afraid of loneliness, but there is strength in it with right mindset for everybody (us introverts thrive in loneliness just sparingly sprinkled with quality human interactions, but others consider it daunting to the point of preferring serious harm)

[zer00eyz]

The people closest to you are the ones who are supposed to be able to tell you that "you're wrong" in the least hurtful way.

"Support everything I do blindly" is NOT what friends do its what sycophants do.

Your friend is supposed to lift you up when your right, and tell you "you are being a moron" when your wrong.

[teddyh]

Thinking that friends must always be supportive and positive is exactly Geek Social Fallacy #2: <https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/>

[ericjmorey]

This is black and white thinking and the reality is grey.

[jp57]

But the OP isn't talking about pies, really.

It seems like the main difference of opinion in this thread comes down to one's default assumptions about whether you expect your friends to give you honest feedback or just smile to save your feelings. Maybe this is a generational or cultural difference, but I think if you can't get honest feedback from your friends you'll never get it at all.

[jihiggins]

imo, only if it's asked in bad faith. maybe that's just worded poorly, but e.g. "oh, thanks! what'd you do differently with this recipe?" or w/e

[JumpCrisscross]

If I took the time to develop, write down and share a recipe, I'd welcome that question. Even if it's not original, there is variation among peach pies and I clearly have an opinion on it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> pie is consumable

More precisely, it's a rival good [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

[addaon]

More precisely, you mean more generally, not more precisely. Saying pie is a consumable and a rival good are equally accurate, but the former is more precise, as the former is a subset of the latter.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you mean more generally, not more precisely

No, I meant what I wrote. Another comment mentioned a chair [1]. A comfortable chair is not consumable, but it is rival. Rivalry is what makes pies and code economically distinct, not consumability.

Put another way, if you have access to infinite identical pies, they behave like code. They're still consumable. But not rival.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41401785

[ok_dad]

When I see two things that appear the same, but were developed or created by two different people and/or methods, I inspect each closely to see where the differences lie. Usually, there are some good lessons to learn from each new pie I consume!

[AtlasBarfed]

Yes, software is the recipe, not the pie